08 February 2010 11:13 AM

Was Hitler influenced by Darwin or by Christianity? Some thoughts on posts by Mr 'Godwin'

A slightly unexpected side-effect of last week's morsel on evolution (which interestingly produced, as this subject always does, more responses than many more immediate topics) were some stern postings by a Mr 'Godwin' about the origin of Hitler's exterminationist beliefs. I suggested that Hitler's keenness for compulsory sterilization, then his programme of 'euthanasia' (aka murder) for the mentally handicapped and finally his racial mass murder were at least partly the result of ideas founded on Charles Darwin's proposition. I might point out here that my idea is not original or rare. In Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, Professor Kershaw (who has no axe to grind on this topic, so far as I know) repeatedly attributes a belief or world view which he terms 'Social Darwinism' to the National Socialist leader.

Mr 'Godwin' disputed my position and also suggested that Hitler remained a Christian (he was certainly baptised and raised as one) during his active life. I try to tackle this below. Can it be that Mr 'Godwin' is one of those who argues with what he wants me to have said, rather than what I have actually said? Does his approach have any other faults? Let us see.

Mr Godwin responded promptly: ’The quotes I provided yesterday came from Die Bücherei 2:6, an official Nazi library journal from 1935 which detailed what should and should not be stocked. It named Häckel as a seditious author.

‘The related list is available via the University of Arizona's website (you must make your own way there from this island), which cites the 1968 publication Strothmann, Dietrich - Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich as its source.’

I believe that this ban (mention of which, I now gather, is a stock-in-trade Darwinist response to the allegation that the Nazis were influenced and inspired by evolutionary theory) was not caused by any NSDAP objection to the theory of evolution, but may have more to do with Hitler's specific disagreement with Haeckel's supporters and disciples, the Monists, who were very far from being Nazis.

So far as I know, the Monist League, which was made up of Haeckel's disciples, was shut down in 1933 by the Nazis, so publications linked with it would have been banned at the same time. Richard Weikart, in his book exploring the links between Darwinism and National Socialist ideology ('From Darwin to Hitler' p.70) notes: ’The Nazi suppression of the Monist League was not a function of a fundamental change in the Monist League's orientation during the Weimar period, as [Daniel] Gasman has argued, but rather reflected significant differences between Haeckel and Hitler. Haeckel and the Monist League promoted many social reforms that were anathema to Hitler, such as homosexual rights, feminism, and pacifism.’

The Daniel Gasman referred to is the author of 'The Scientific Origins of National Socialism', in which he wrote (Chapter 7): ’If one surveys the origins of the Volkish movement in Germany during the three or four decades prior to the First World War it is apparent that Haeckel played an influential, significant, indeed a decisive role in its genesis and subsequent development. An impressive number of the most influential Volkish writers, propagandists, and spokesmen were influenced by or involved in some way with either Haeckel or his Monist followers. In the development of racism, racial eugenics, Germanic Christianity, nature worship, and anti-Semitism, Haeckel and the Monists were an important source and a major inspiration for many of the diverse streams of thought which came together later on under the banner of National Socialism.’

But plainly (see above) not all of them. And here you could see why Hitler or his followers might have wanted to ban Haeckel, for political reasons, rather than because Haeckel was a sort of Darwinist.

Haeckel himself was very far from being an orthodox Darwinist. I submit that it was his Monism, and the politics of it, not his evolutionary beliefs, that Hitler didn't like.

Now, here's a question for Mr 'Godwin'. If the Darwinists could find, in this 'Die Bucherei' volume, an instruction to ban 'The Origin of Species' or 'The Descent of Man' wouldn't they mention it in preference to the Haeckel ban? Perhaps they can't find evidence of such a ban because Darwin wasn't in fact banned by the Nazis. The banning of an obscure Monist work by Haeckel doesn't amount to a Nazi hostility to Darwin.

I have so far been able to find no record of mainstream evolutionist works, by Darwin or Huxley, being included in the Nazi book-burnings of 1933, or in subsequent library or bookshop bans. Yet we know from contemporary accounts that the works of Sigmund Freud and many other notables were chucked on Dr Goebbels's bonfire. If Darwin had been among them, wouldn't the Darwinists proudly trumpet this fact?

Actually, you can see why Hitler might quite have liked this famous extract (easily located in the Project Gutenberg e-text) from Darwin's 'Descent of Man' (Chapter 6, in the section entitled 'On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man'):

‘The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies, between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae, between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.’

We might all pause for a moment here, and ponder a bit. These are, so far as I know, the words of that nice old man on the ten pound note.

Back, however, to Mr 'Godwin'.

Nobody is saying that Hitlerian extermination is the direct or only possible consequence of belief in Evolution by Natural Selection. But I am arguing that Hitlerism is permitted by this belief, and debarred by Christianity.

Mr 'Godwin' then engages in a tiny bit of bait and switch. He produces several quotations from Hitler which confirm (what is not in dispute) that Hitler was a Theist or Deist of some kind. Examples: ‘Mein Kampf translations are available widely online. In volume one, chapter two, Hitler wrote “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”‘In volume one, chapter eight, Hitler wrote: “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”

‘In volume two, chapter ten, Hitler wrote “Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.” ‘

But this is not the argument. Mr 'Godwin' assumes that any mention of 'God' must imply that the user is a Christian. In modern Europe this is a reasonable assumption. But is it right in this case? My argument is firstly that Hitler was not a Christian, but some sort of Pagan; next that his attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church was tactical, not attacking it directly until he was strong enough to do so. For this, see Kershaw's biography of Hitler (Vol 1, 1889-1936, 'Hubris', Penguin paperback edition, 2001, p.34) on Hitler's criticism of his forerunner in the Volkisch movement, Georg Schoenerer, for antagonising the Catholic Church from a position of weakness. Yet on page 58 we find reliable accounts that Hitler, when a dosser and layabout in Vienna, was obsessively hostile to the Jesuits. I said I believed that he was a sort of Wagnerian Pagan, a view for which I think there is much support in recorded episodes of Hitler's life, his undoubted passion for Wagnerian opera from his loafing days in Vienna till his death, and his own statements. Why, he may even have been a 'theistic evolutionist'.

It is well known that the Nazis encouraged a Church (The German Christians) from which the Jewish Christ (and the Jewish Old Testament) had been removed and in which Hitler himself was the 'completion of the Reformation'. Baptised Jews were also excluded from this grotesque 'church'. A rival body, the 'Confessing Church' was set up by orthodox Protestants to counter it. There were unconfirmed, and (undenied) rumours that Hitler had himself joined the 'Deutsche Christen' at some Witches' Sabbath in Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad) in April 1933. Against this we have the single quotation attributed to Hitler in the diary of General Gerhard Engel, in which Hitler is supposed to have said that he was and had always been a Catholic. The diary was written in 1941 but seems to refer to a pre-war conversation. Hitler, as we know, would say almost anything to anybody if he wanted something from them, and often did so. David Irving, for what that's worth, apparently thinks the Engel diary (which he says he has seen at first hand) is a fake. I don't see what motive Mr Irving would have for denying its authenticity, but I wouldn't necessarily want to rely on his opinion, either. I just mention it. If anyone has better information on this diary, I'm anxious to see it.

Mr 'Godwin' says of Hitler's Mein Kampf ravings: ’These are not the words of a man who was an exponent of (or even believed or understood) the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, nor are they atheist philosophy. These are the words of a deranged psychopath who professed to believe in a divinely created superior race of a divinely created superior species, created separately with a God-given right over all others to do what was necessary to maintain its “Rassenreinheit”.’

I'm not sure how he can be so certain of that. I'll return to that in a moment.

Finally he said: ‘Mr Hitchens has claimed that Hitler was a keen exponent of Charles Darwin’s theory of a naturalistic origin of species, but has provided no evidence to back up his claim. I cannot find one recorded mention of Darwin in all of Hitler’s work. Does Mr Hitchens have any positive evidence of Darwin’s influence on Hitler, or will this assertion remain unsupported?’

This statement - that the name of Darwin doesn't feature in Hitler's book, is often made by evolutionists. It is both entirely true and deeply misleading. Is it meant to be misleading? Mr 'Godwin' will have to tell us. Since he claims to be familiar with the ravings of Hitler, can he not have noticed the flaw in his assertion? Let me help him.

The name of 'Darwin' is, it is true, not invoked anywhere in Mein Kampf. Given the establishment of the theory (pretty much complete by Hitler's own youth) as a scientific orthodoxy, it is just as likely to be referred to by the name of the theory (if not more so) than by the name of its chief proponent. And the word 'evolution' most certainly is invoked in Mein Kampf. I believe that it was also frequently invoked in Hitler's orations and newspaper articles, and I would welcome any information about that.

Now, to the appearance of the evolution theory in Mein Kampf. Does it appear? Yes. Does the way in which it is used suggest that Hitler did or did not believe in it? It suggests to me that he accepted it, insofar as it suited him to do so, without necessarily understanding it. He may not have understood it, but then most people who believe in it don't understand it either, so that's of little significance. Take for instance this passage (to be found on p.237 of the pdf of Mein Kampf easily located on the web): ’The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all’.

This seems to me to settle that Hitler, like most people, had absorbed the conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory, and that he thought, wrote and acted as if it was a settled truth. Hitler, as we also know, left his 'Realschule' at the age of 16 with an undistinguished record in all subjects (he had been chucked out of a better school because of his poor marks). He is unlikely to have had any expert understanding of the theory, any more than most of its lay adherents do now. But that didn't stop him from believing in it, any more than it stops others from doing so today, on as flimsy a basis, and acting upon their beliefs.

On the following page we find :’If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one, because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds and thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.’

There are further mentions of evolution as assumed truth on p.245, 248, 249, 365, 471 and 530 (I have omitted one or two uses of the expression in a purely political sense, though these too would tend to suggest that Hitler accepted it as a scientific fact)

Mr ‘Godwin’ again: ’In the meantime, my most recent post, and posts by others, provided unambiguous evidence that Hitler was in fact a keen exponent of belief in a Christian God, who publicly said he was a Catholic doing the work of the Lord.’

Do they, though? Can Mr ‘Godwin’ refer me to the passages which establish these precise propositions? A god of some sort, yes. A Christian God? Not so clear.

Mr ‘Godwin’ once more: ‘Hitler told people he was on a mission for the divine creator, who had given men their physical features and mental capacity, and created a master race which should be kept pure in accordance with His will. These religious ideas are repeated throughout Mein Kampf. The idea that Hitler was an exponent of any naturalistic explanation of human origins, or any other atheistic philosophy is a clear fallacy.’

But that is not my proposition. My proposition is that Hitler was an evolutionist, a survival-of-the-fittest Spencerian, and non-Christian theist. The 'Christ' of the 'German Christians' was not, for instance, a Jew.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the original racialist theorist, and one of the prophets of Nazi racial theory, devoted some effort to trying to establish that Jesus was not a Jew. Yet it's perfectly obvious from the Gospels that Christ was a Jew. Nobody could be a Christian and accept this nonsense. I don't think most Nazis believed it either. Olivia Manning, who was in Nazi-dominated Bucharest in 1940-41, records watching newsreels of victorious German soldiers singing, in 1940, 'Wir wollen keinen Christen sein, weil Christus war ein Judenschwein' - ‘We don't want to be Christians, because Christ was a Jewish pig'. I regret having to reproduce this slime, and having to translate it, but people should be in no doubt of the sort of thing that was taught and sung in the SA, the SS and the Hitler Youth, and of the vicious hostility towards Christianity shown by National Socialists at many opportunities. How this could be so if Hitler had been a practising Roman Catholic, I really cannot say. Hitler's mystical references to the Almighty are not by any means necessarily to be taken as references to the God of Christianity, let alone the God of Judaism.

Mr 'Godwin' again: ‘Mr Hitchens states that if Hitler was an exponent of Darwinism as he claimed, it would demonstrate that the theory has repulsive consequences in human action. This is an obvious non-sequitur. If Hitler was an exponent of Christianity (which clearly he was), would Mr Hitchens accept that Christianity had these same repulsive consequences? Whatever Hitler believed, it can teach us nothing about the truth of our origins, whether they are natural or supernatural.’

Well, see above for whether Hitler was in fact 'clearly' a Christian, let alone an 'exponent' of Christianity. If this were so, where are the accounts, anywhere, of his attending religious services (apart from patriotic shows such as the famous 1933 gathering at the Garrison Church in Potsdam) and the pictures of him leaving church portals after Mass? Which church did he attend in Vienna? Or Munich? Or Berlin? Was there a chaplain at Rastenburg, or in the Hitler bunker, to serve his needs? Who was he? Why haven't we heard from his confessor? Or his pastor? Or anyone? There's no evidence of this Christianity of Hitler's except unreliable third-hand tittle-tattle, so far as I know.

Yet the eugenicists, with their belief in sterilisation of the 'inferior', and the racial theorists, such as Chamberlain, were excited by Darwinism. In the days before 1945, when such movements were still respectable all over the civilised world (see Richard Overy's recent book 'the Morbid Age' for an account of the enormous strength of the eugenicists in inter-war Britain) there can be no doubt that general acceptance of Darwin fuelled such utopian ideas. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was Herbert Spencer's, but it wasn't an unreasonable deduction from Darwin. Could it, would it, have been formulated without Darwin? Hitler's 'euthanasia' of the mentally handicapped, and his eventual mass-murder of supposedly inferior races are not mandated by evolutionary theory. But I think honest evolutionists must be able to see how useful such a theory might be to someone who believed in racial superiority and the extermination of the 'unfit' and the 'subhuman'.

Mr 'Godwin' is of course free to reply at length to this examination of his postings, if he so wishes. I very much hope he does. I will instruct the moderators to accept a posting from him which is longer than the 500-word limit.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Racial superiority theories do not derive from Evolution, given that in Evolution there is nothing superior or inferior at any given time, everyone today passed the test of Natural Selection. The notion of racial superiority pre-dates Evolution and was a part of the Creationist notion of the Great Chain of Being, where lower forms went to superior forms, because the superior were more "Godlike" culminating in man. There was a reason why eugenics and racial segregation were so strongly practiced in the Bible Belt of the USA; and that reason was not Darwinism, but Creationism. Only a Creationist can believe there is "intent" in nature to the point that some people do not deserve to live/reproduce. In a natural world without Supreme intentions, "eu-" or "dys-"genics make no sense whatsoever.

Dear Mr. Hitchens,
Thanks for your insightful comments. I think Hitler never mentioned Darwin's name as he considered evolution to be a basic fact of life, like the law of gravity, and not a theory of an English scientist. Richard Weikart's book Hitler's Ethic explores the Darwin connection in some detail.
Hitler's "thought" is very close to and in some cases identical to that of Wagner and H.S. Chamberlain. His concepts of Jews reflect not religious anti-Semitism but the new racial and philosophical anti-Semitism that emerged in the 19th century and rejected traditional Christian themes.

And now Chris Doyle proves just how deluded and full of himself he is that he honestly thinks I'm going to spend my weekend checking to see if a creationist has "replied" to me on an internet blog. Unlike you, it would seem, Chris Doyle, I have a life and don't feel any great obligation to keep checking this blog every five minutes to see what you have to say. Not that it's any of your business, but I've been in a relationship for ten years! You?

What on earth are you drawing a distinction between types of argument for? You have previously called me "argumentative" and yet the moment I challenge that, rather than come back with a quote that shows I have been argumentative in any context, you instead just waffle on with a laughable personal attack.

I've no intention of repeating myself ad infinitum about the importance of learning. If you continue to wish to be ignorant, that is entirely up to you. Just don't expect anyone else to humour you. Your nasty tone (which runs through all your posts) and you whole purpose of being here seems to be to wish to attack atheists and educated people who accept that evolution is true, often ad hominem. You need to get out more.

No doubt, in your eagerness to have "the last word", you will be back posting with yet another inaccurate and unfounded ad hominem, repeating your mantra that there's nothing to be learned from books and people who think so must be shouted at. Please don't do so on my account. You are as tedious as you are shrill, and your comments as devoid of content as anything I've ever read. (Yes, I read.)

Poor old Richie Craze, hoping he can have the last word by waiting for days to respond to my message on the off-chance that I won't check again.

There is a difference, Richie, between a philosophical argument and a domestic one. The sooner you learn this, the sooner you might be able to spend time working on a relationship with a girl rather than wasting time writing posts that boil down to "I read it in a book somewhere, so it must be true".

Oh, so it's me being argumentative is it? Where have I been argumentative? Are you not being argumentative?

This rather laughable self-delusion is precisely why I have no intention of engaging with you. I am not remotely interested in hearing your grand hypothesis as to why potassium-argon dating "doesn't work". I really do have better things to do with my time than humour you.

You completely ignored what I wrote in my previous post and return with your entirely spurious claim that I only believe things because I "read it in a book". I would suggest that is precisely your problem. You really need to read *other* books besides the one you mistakenly think is true.

What, Chris Doyle, you expect me to sit here and type out how potassium-argon dating works on your behalf? Don't be lazy. Google it or go to a library. I don't have time or willing to educate you for free.

First i would like to say that i despise most Tories.Like most people that come from mineing areas all across the North of England and Scotland.There's only two parties that can do ANYTHING for the British people now,thats the BNP or the UKIP.
You have the nerve to talk about Mr Griffins louts,whose violence was on display last week.What about the Tyrant Thatcher,that sent the police from London( Storm troopers) to smash the strikeing miners.Police on horseback baton chargeing young and old miners,that had the right to withdraw the only thing they had.THIER LABOUR.But not according to you Tory's.I served my country for 12 years and served in all the trouble spots arround the world.And was proud to do so.But without any thanks from any Tory or Labour government.These two British governments have destroyed the spirit and pa'triotism of the British people.And destroyed the country to boot. It has to stop VOTE BNP OR UKIP We have to have a change.Believe it or not most people in the UK are racist.They have had enough of your EU rules and regulations.that the Tory's back all the way.The people want out of the EU.Who will get us out? The BNP OR UKIP

Hitchens: " I suggested that Hitler's keenness for compulsory sterilization, then his programme of 'euthanasia' (aka murder) for the mentally handicapped and finally his racial mass murder were at least partly the result of ideas founded on Charles Darwin's proposition. "

You couldn't be wronger. Darwin did nothing except _weaken_ any conceivable case for Eugenics. Eugenics is based on the pre-Darwinian notion of artificial selection (selective breeding). All Darwin did was give us a reason why this kind of interference is superfluous. The environment does the selecting, so we don't have to. If anything, evolutionary theory is prohibitive of eugenics.

We do have secular reference from a number of sources to verify the situation at the time and we can interpret events described in the NT in the light of that knowledge, so its a little unfair to say neither of us witnessed it, and dismiss it as a matter of opinion. Neither of us witnessed the first world war but we can be pretty sure of what happened.
When we read in (Acts 8:3) that just after the stoning of Steven, Saul/Paul who is described as a young man at the stoning (7:58), was going from house to house and putting men and women in prison, we can deduce that he worked for the authorities (high priest/police chief) because it was not in the power of ordinary citizens to just arbitrarily throw people in prison.
The Romans were a sophisticated people with bona fide legal procedures and would not countenance individual upstarts filling jail cells for what they would have regarded as petty inter-Jewish religious differences.
Actually If I may digress the English translation 'young man' from the Greek source 'neanias' is not precise because it actually means 'adolescent youth' so what kind of administration allows 13 year old boys to throw adults into prison is a puzzle. more likely poetic licence/lie on the part of the author Luke to distance his hero (young man Saul) Paul from culpability in the stoning of Steven. We can be pretty sure though that Paul was a mature man, and prepared to even kill (Acts 22:4) as one of the High Priest's thugs I mentioned earlier. This is another example of transferring the role of baddie from the Roman authorities and onto the Jews in the NT. instead of Paul killing Steven (whom he never mentions in his epistles) on behalf of the quisling authorities we have him reduced to a bystander and the Jews in the shape of a murderous mob carry the can.
The notion that a dignified, body such as the Sanhedrin, with its strict rules of procedure, would suddenly turn into a lynch mob is unhistorical and about as believable as a high court judge today ordering his officials to drag a defendant outside the Old Bailey and summarily execute him, so we must view this version of events in the light of the author's motive to besmirch the Jews (read Stevens rant against the Jewish nation just prior to his stoning Acts 7:51) and further evidence as anti-Semitism in the NT.
It is very important to always bear in mind when we read about Jews that there was the two groups, Collaborators, which included the High Priest and his police force, and resisters such as Jesus' companions.

You also say:
"Roman rule was usually reserved for those that they felt were a threat to the empire." precisely, you have answered the question yourself the fact he was killed in this fashion speaks volumes.

Hello Dermot,
So what you're saying is that the Romans were the main instigators in the execution of Jesus and they just hired out Jewish thugs to go out and hunt down people they felt were a threat to the stability of their empire.

Well that is one reading of history, which neither one of us witnessed, but another one is that while the Romans had reason to fear Jesus because of the many riots and uprisings that took place in that area, the Jewish leaders may have had more reason to fear him. Whether or not the high priest was a holy man or not, he, like the other Jewish leaders, managed to hold onto some of their power by cooperating with the Romans. These leaders saw the crowds gathering around Jesus who were amazed by his teaching and miracles. This was a threat to them, but an even greater threat would have been if the people were starting to believe he was the promised Messiah, as the records show people were starting to believe (even if he himself never said it) There was a strong belief, especially in Galilee, that it was the end of times and the Messiah was soon to come,

Then there is the question of what they would have executed him for. Typically blashphemy was punishable by stoning, which prior to the crucifixion the Jews did try to do. (John 10:31-39) But crucifixion under Roman rule was usually reserved for those that they felt were a threat to the empire. For those that raised their hands against the empire. Otherwise there were quicker ways to kill someone, like beheading them. Claiming to be King would certainly have posed a threat to their emperor, so either he claimed to be king or others said that he was. And the royal-messiah claim helps to explain why he alone was executed but none of his followers were. This wasn't a cell of plotters, Jesus himself was the issue.

I know there is disagreement over who was more responsible for Jesus death; the Jews or the Romans. Both would have had reasons to want to get rid of him, but the Jews would have had reason to not want to do it themselves. So they could easily have coaxed the Romans into believing that Jesus was a threat to them. And it is true that at the time of the writing of the Gospels that the Christians had reason to not want to antagonize the Romans so they didn't place much blame on them, but it seems very plausible to me that there was at least equal blame, but that the Jews may have had even more reason to fear him.

Maybe passages in the New Testament did influence Hitler's attitudes towards the Jews, but coming from someone as obviously unstable and non-religous as him, I dont' think it matters. It obviously doesn't have to be interpreted the way that he (and others) have interpreted it, because as I said before the Christians today are reading the same book and coming to very different conclusions. (which I will explain further in another post)

Elaine.
I forgot to say I don't expect you to accept what I said and it does appear a little dogmatic, but it is the way I understand events at the time of Jesus and I am prepared to answer any challenge to that point of view.

I was wondering if "Richie Craze" was ever going to join in. Not a promising beginning though. If you believe that Potassium-Argon dating can be used to date the Earth, you need to explain how. Just saying, "Richard Dawkins said it does so it must be true" isn't going to cut it.

I was going to ignore Wesley's request because he has ignored virtually all of my arguments. But maybe, just maybe he will actually investigate these sources, come back and apologise for the disparaging remarks he has made about the observational facts I cited and then agree that the evidence for whale and finch evolution is non-existent. Highly unlikely I know but without further ado:

Hello Elaine, and thanks for your interesting thoughts.
Firstly as the premise on this thread is, was Hitler influenced by Darwin or Christianity so the "anti-Semitism" in the Koran must be for another day.

Your question:
"Muslims" say that Jesus never said that he was the Son of God. If so, what reason did the Jews have to execute him?"

This depends on who and what you mean by the Jews. Just like occupied France during the war, when many French nationals collaborated with the Nazis to the detriment of their fellow countrymen, there were Jews who collaborated with the Roman occupation notably the high priest (more accurately, high police chief) who was appointed by the Romans and on the Roman pay-roll.
A common, and understandable mistake by Gospel readers, is they assume the high priest was a holy man like our arch-bishop of Canterbury, but this couldn't be farther from the truth, he would be more like the Vichy regime's Marshal Petain with little interest in religious affairs (though he did perform rituals in the Temple during festivals) but strong interest in the politics of the area in his charge.
The "Jewish" thugs, including the then Saul, that worked with the high priest for the Romans and against the people, would be highly motivated to eliminate men like Steven and Jesus for political, not religious reasons, to stop any uprisings amongst the subject Jewish population. (Luke 23:5).
Similar to the quisling Vichy French regime they employed brutal tactics in hunting down their own people for their Roman masters, and this is the true background to the events that led to Jesus' trial and death.
The emergence of Paul's Christianity a few years after these events and the subsequent conflict (this time it was religious) with Jewish Christians led by Jesus' brother James, has led to heavy editing of the story by the Gospel writers, who were all members of Paul's church, and had good reason to downplay the Roman authority role in his death (they were preaching to a Roman audience) and shift the blame onto the real Jews who would never accept Paul's authority and regarded him as a false prophet.
You can really get a feel for this conflict between the two movements, when you read Paul's letter to the Galatians, a very revealing document indeed, in which Paul calls Peter a hypocrite.
So we are left with the travesty of the truth where the Brutal Pontius Pilate is painted as a kindly pragmatist (a falsehood easy to verify from secular reference) and the innocent Jews who loved and followed Jesus become the villains, and his killers. Jews were involved for sure, but not the genuine religious Jews which Jesus was a revered member.
This vilification of the Jews that started 2000 years ago became an ethic of Christian culture and surely played a part in Hitler's attitude towards the Jewish race which led to the Holocaust.
Sorry Elaine no more space.

References for these statements, Mr Doyle. And please also provide a reference for Thewissen's alleged comment. Could it be that Doyle is relucant to do this, because they come from creationist websites?

"The Struggle Continues..." is in one sense, misleading: when one side is armed with observational facts and reason and the other side is, well, Wesley then there is no struggle. There can be no more brutal exposure of Wesley's Crosland wilful ignorance than that provided by his own posts.

The indisputable facts (and I mean indisputable, no evolutionist other than Wesley is disputing them) about the Grants' observations are as follows:

1. In 1977, it was observed that the average beak size and depth in one variety of finch - Geospiza fortis - grew by less than 2 millimetres
2. In 2003, it was observed that the average beak size and depth in the same variety of finch - Geospiza fortis - declined by less than 2 millimetres

That is sub-specific variety, and not very impressive at that considering that the finches ended up back where they started again.

Do you deny you’re a Catholic then, Dermot? Your Catholicism has everything to do with it, since it was your religious faith which led you to patronize Down Syndrome suffers. I contend that it’s a chromosomal disorder – a product of genetics – whereas you even attempt to explain why it is your “benevolent” God would permit its existence in the first place.

If a benevolent God would not have permitted Down Syndrome, then your God does not exist. If your God would permit it, then He may exist but he is certainly not benevolent. This is a rather frightening thought, and so I find it preferable to believe that there is no God. But those like Hitchens (and doubtless yourself) actually even like old Jehovah, a genocidal maniac who’s no God of mine. As the great Martin Gardner says, God is benevolent, all-loving and merciful, or He is nothing.

I am happy not to have anything more to do with you. People like you disturb me. Christopher Hitchens is completely right, religion does poison everything. I’m therefore heartened that Britain is becoming an increasingly secular society. Does this matter? Well, I will read Hitchens’s forthcoming book closely, but I am mindful of the fact that religion got its morality from us, and not the other way around.

All that the Grants observed was sub-specific variety. Forgive me for being a tad skeptical of this, Doyle, coming, as it does, from a man who is no better than a Holocaust-denier. The Grants have spent decades on the Galapagos, and nowhere can I find them as saying on record that what they had really been observing all along was sub-specific variety, and not natural selection in action. Is Christopher Doyle privy to the inmost thoughts of the Grants? Or is he – much more likely – just making this garbage up?

But I refuse to let this half of The Two Doyles have it all his own way. He continues to challenge me over my acceptance (it’s not a belief, since scientists don’t believe things and belief isn’t a part of science – that’s religion, don’t you know) of evolutionary theory.

Well, let me put the onus on him: respond to my “inferences and deductions” challenge, and, indeed, my previous challenge that, if organic life was designed, then why does function not precede structure? What we actually find is structure gradually acquiring function – something we would expect if evolution were true. Any creator would first establish what the function should be. But emerging structures are haphazard and have to build on what already exists. Thus, no intelligent design.

If I were Mr Doyle, I’d be far more concerned with, say, why my beloved God recently flattened little Haiti, whose people had already suffered tremendous oppression and privation. This seems to me far more troubling to the theist than any so-called defects in evolutionary theory.

One cannot have a rational debate with the religious. They have one big advantage over the anti-theist… they have the privilege of self-declared religious ‘insight‘, whereas the anti-theist humanist is merely restricted to corroborated scientific fact.

This allows the religious to make the most extraordinarily unsubstantiated claims about their ‘god’ and the origins of the cosmos, whilst also denying corroborated scientific fact… this leads such people to afford their god all of the credit for the good things that happen in life, whilst absolving it of blame for the bad.

The religious will distort reality, invent falsehoods and deny scientifically corroborated fact to protect their irrational faith, and to promote their evil, callous, misanthropic and inhumane attitude to their fellow man.

The pope’s hateful and knowingly dishonest claim that condoms *increase* the spread of AIDS is a perfect example of the religious putting adherence to spurious and subjective moral values above the welfare of humanity. Such misanthropes think that people having sex is worse than a mother of six children dying a lingering death from AIDS.

Sadly, such delusional thinking and behaviour extends well beyond religion into the world of politics…

Society must ensure that religion never pollutes politics with its superstitious nonsense, callous immorality and elitist, misogynist, racist and homophobic agenda…

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.” - Carl Sagan

Oh dear, Wesley's powers of reasoning are rapidly diminishing (and they were pretty weak to begin with). We know that because he is clearly not paying attention, probably because he doesn't understand. So let me explain.

Wesley demanded that I "accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Mr Doyle, and that we know this through carbon dating and by means of the content of carbon 14?"

This is wholly erroneous for the following reasons:

1. Carbon dating can only be applied to substances that used to be alive.
2. Earth is not alive.
3. Carbon dating can only be applied to things that are less than 60,000 years old.
4. 4,500,000,000 is more than 60,000.

Therefore, anybody who claims that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and "we know this through carbon dating" is completely and utterly ignorant about the subject. Not a problem for most people. But when you're Wesley, who wants to impress everyone with his new-found scientific wisdom, it is a deeply embarrassing mistake that cuts through all of the bombast and reveals an immature fool.

Wesley accuses me of dismissing "eminent biologists and palaeontologists". This is another one of those strange uses of words that Wesley uses in relation to science. For Wesley, "eminent" means "reputable" and "reputable" means "Defender of the Evolutionist Faith". I'm happy to provide references for everything I've said: most of the time, the source material is directly from the likes of Lenski and the Grants... Wesley doesn't realise this because he hasn't even looked at the source material. He relies upon deeply flawed evolutionist websites like talk.origins for his soundbites. The same is true of Thewissen when he acknowledges that Pakicetus doesn't have whale-like teeth at all. Here's a quote from the man himself which Wesley will either ignore or pretend to understand:

"Deep, near-vertical gouges constitute most of the dental wear in pakicetids. Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life."

Now Wesley, read this carefully: sub-specific variety is not evolution. No evolutionist claims that it is. Except you. No evolutionist claims that variety in dogs is evolution. Except you. Genetic homeostasis is an established and impenetrable barrier to artificial selection. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that. Clearly, Wesley knows nothing about the subject.

Surely there are some other evolutionists out there who are willing to try where Wesley has failed time and again?

Your tactic of inventing statements to put in the mouths of opponents then go on to attack that statement is a loathsome and cowardly dishonest trick, that is well suited to your character, but then it may not be your fault as you only think your sane.
Though I may refer to your nonsense from time to time, I shall not directly communicate with you any more unless you apologize, but that would be manly behaviour beyond your capabilities.
You are slow on the uptake Crosland, but even so, what the behaviour of the Catholic church has got to do with me heaven knows, and I certainly don't have to answer for it.

Given that we’ve been subjected to a mound of manure from The Two Doyles ever since my imprecise remark (I maintain that was all it was) concerning carbon dating, I think it rather laughable that they accuse me of making erroneous statements. Why was my remark imprecise, rather than wholly erroneous? Why, because this method is useful for dating, but only to an extent. This was what I missed out. Big deal.

In just a handful of posts, Chris Doyle has (quite staggeringly) dismissed the work of eminent biologists and palaeontologists, including Peter and Rosemary Grant and Richard Lenski. Absolutely shocking, but, more importantly, completely UNREFERENCED. Now there’s a surprise. By the way, can Doyle provide us with the source of Thewissen's retraction? Don't bother if it comes from Answersingenesis.

Chris Doyle also doesn’t seem aware that the rainbow spectrum of dog breeds that we have today are the result of artificial selection (selective breeding), which is itself good evidence for evolution. Darwin socialized with pigeon fanciers, and, lo and behold, one day it occurred to him that nature itself might be the selecting agent. Such a simple insight, and yet one that eluded even the greatest minds until Darwin came along.

The day I ever apologise to a Catholic will only happen when they in turn apologise for belonging to a racket. You gave us an insulting – indeed some would say disgusting – rationalization of Down Syndrome, Dermot. But this was necessarily so, because you belong to such a sinister and warped faith. The secular humanist, however, far from believing in the ridiculous notion that a benevolent God could ever have created the condition in the first place, knows that the condition is nothing more than a chromosomal disorder. To be sure, those with the condition are just as important and just as loved as those without the condition, but let us not pretend that not having the condition is not preferable, or that the condition is part of God’s “mysterious ways”.

Run along now Dermot. Haven’t you got important business to attend to, like telling vulnerable people that they’re going to Limbo for not being Baptised? Oh wait, your Pope just unilaterally abolished it. Ha ha. You know, it’s not just a racket; it’s a bloody circus too.

Hello Dermot,
I was waiting for a response from Sue Sims or Loren Z, but since they don't seem to be responding may I add a few thoughts ?
Regarding the claim that the New Testament is anti-semitic; I'm sure you know that the Koran also criticizes the Jews for certain behaviors just as the old testament prophets rebuked the Hebrews. For example in Micah (Chapter 3:1-12) and Hosea (Chapter 8:1-14), these Prophets condemned the Jews "who abhor justice and pervert all equity" and who "build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong." These Prophets cursed Israel as a "useless vessel among nations," and called for the curse of God to "send a fire upon [Judah's] cities" and to make Jerusalem "a heap of ruins"
The Koran criticized them for several things one of which was trying to kill Jesus and claiming that they had. (Sûrah al-Nisa': 157-158) As you probably know the Koran says that they were not able to kill Jesus because God saved him, but why were they trying to kill him ? Muslims will tell you that Jesus never said that he was the Son of God. If that is true then what reason did the Jews have to execute him ? They would have had to have had some reason. They were living under Roman rule and they would have had to follow the law. The reason the New Testament gives is Blasphemy. I suppose there could have been some other charge that warranted death, but what was it ? The Koran doesn't give an alternative charge, so if there was no charge at all and they just tried to kill him because.... what??? then I would still say that is pretty bad behavior. So maybe they were hypocrites and liars.
It doesn't mean that they all were and the ones that were have nothing to do with the Jews today or 300 years ago, or 1000 years ago. And anyone that can't see that is just not very perceptive in my opinion.
I am not an historian but I really think that if Hitler used the New Testament to justify the holocaust it was just an excuse. Just like Saddam Hussein used the Sunni/Shiite divisions to consolidate power. I suspect there were other factors involved in the anti-semitism that existed in Europe in the 1930's because if you look at the most fundamental Christians today, they are also the mostly blindly and ignorantly pro-Israel. There are evangelical churches in the US that have fundraisers to support the developments on the occupied territories, which is a huge obstacle to peace.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.